I write educational content in science for ages middle-school and up. I was about to use the word "Sisyphean" in one post but then balked, wondering if people even recognize words derived from classic mythology anymore? I mean, sure, the truly curious and motivated would look up the meaning online, but I fear more would just skip over it, or try to guess the meaning from context at best.

And linking the word to its definition would seem condescending to the reader.

I'm pretty sure I could get away with "Herculean" or "Pandora's box" and maybe a couple others, but suspect the lack of classic mythology in most schools' curricula these days is kinda removing some good words from the language.

Wondering if it's worth trying to keep that flame lit, or perhaps I should just start talking more like "Calvin's dad." Opinions solicited, thanks.

Nonsense. "Accessible language" is a self-defeating goal (no words are inherently known, all language must be acquired, and the younger the better,) especially over such a trivial point as an unfamiliar metaphor.

"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling." - Bjarne Stroustrupwww.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

If it's such a trivial point, then why do you think it's so important to keep the inaccessible reference?

Also, the only nonsense here is your claim that accessible language is a self-defeating goal. The whole point of education is to build up knowledge, and you can't do that effectively if you act like students should already know everything you want to teach them.

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

I must have missed the part where the OP said the educational content was also intended to teach Greek mythology.

In any case, you don't generally introduce information by assuming students already know it.

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

There comes a point when adding more unfamiliar things they'll have to ask about becomes counterproductive, because the explanation is beyond the scope of the present endeavor and will amount to a waste of time that could be better spent teaching the science.

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

gmalivuk wrote:There comes a point when adding more unfamiliar things they'll have to ask about becomes counterproductive, because the explanation is beyond the scope of the present endeavor and will amount to a waste of time that could be better spent teaching the science.

This is very true! I just think that, wherever that point is, a metaphor that's not even super obscure and easy to explain is probably well on the safe side of the line.

"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling." - Bjarne Stroustrupwww.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

Could be. What I called nonsense was your claim that accessible language is self-defeating. This particular bit of inaccessibility may be fine, depending on the context and how much other new material being presented at the same time.

But it's still potentially inaccessible, and that has to be something you consider when writing educational material.

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

It's a fair point as far as the practical reality of writing educational material goes, but I do stand by my assertion that striving to avoid ever exposing students to terms they're unfamiliar with is an excellent way of ensuring that they never become familiar with them in the first place.

(And I don't buy the "it has nothing to do with the science, so leave it for English class" line of thought, either. The entire point behind metaphors is that they help enrich the reader's understanding of something by means of a comparison with something else.)

gmalivuk wrote:So why not just teach them science with papers published in Nature?

There comes a point when adding more unfamiliar things they'll have to ask about becomes counterproductive, because the explanation is beyond the scope of the present endeavor and will amount to a waste of time that could be better spent teaching the science.

Yeah, that was kinda my main question though I may not have expressed it clearly. There's plenty of metaphors common enough to use w/o worry, and I'd love to motivate these kids enough to look something up and really learn a new concept, but there's that middle ground where you might just lose them by being obscure. And sure, I write about science with no hidden agenda to teach mythology, but "Sisyphean" is a great word with no synonym to my knowledge. I could rewrite the sentence replacing it with its effective definition but that comes out kinda "wordy".

Appreciate all the feedback so far ... just wanted to jump back in to clarify my question.

commodorejohn wrote:↶striving to avoid ever exposing students to terms they're unfamiliar with is an excellent way of ensuring that they never become familiar with them in the first place.

True, but it's also not a thing anyone in this discussion has done or suggested.

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

Heimhenge wrote:I write educational content in science for ages middle-school and up. I was about to use the word "Sisyphean" in one post but then balked, wondering if people even recognize words derived from classic mythology anymore?

You should use it. "Sisyphean" isn't all that unusual. It's also a wonderful word that doesn't really have any perfect synonym.

Even if they don't know the myth, it's better to give them a chance to learn the word than to try and avoid using it. I'd guess that most middle schoolers could probably figure out at least a pretty close meaning from the context (depending on what, exactly, the text is).

Bloopy wrote:Some kids will be able to retain a larger vocabulary size, so it's good to throw a few challenging words in for them. I'd say keep it.

Heimhenge wrote:"Sisyphean" is a great word with no synonym to my knowledge.

If it's in the context of a Sisyphean task, you could say insurmountable task, but I don't think there's a good synonym for Sisyphean effort.

Yeah, I thought about "insurmountable" and "arduous" and "hopeless" but it just ain't quite the same meaning. FYI, here's the sentence where I wanted to use it (discussing the practicality of a Maxwell's Demon for sorting particles):

The Demon would find that, after a point, given a finite time to react, for every fast particle allowed through the shutter there'd be previously-trapped fast particles escaping back into the lower temperature chamber. Achieving any further temperature difference would be a Sysyphean task."

If you understand the whole Maxwell's Demon concept, you'll see that "Sisyphean" is exactly the word to use. Based on the feedback here I've decided to go with my first inclination and will use that metaphor. Let the kids look it up, figure it out, and maybe learn something new. Thanks to all for the input.

(It's all too easy to get the "quote and reply" button instead of the "re-edit my post" one. You seem to have done it repeatedly. Hopefully you got it right, eventually, and that it's not a Sisyphean task for you… )

I assumed the final post was the desired version and just deleted the earlier copies. (But yeah, we've all done the same thing before.)

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

Soupspoon wrote:(It's all too easy to get the "quote and reply" button instead of the "re-edit my post" one. You seem to have done it repeatedly. Hopefully you got it right, eventually, and that it's not a Sisyphean task for you… )

Heimhenge wrote:Yeah, I thought about "insurmountable" and "arduous" and "hopeless" but it just ain't quite the same meaning. FYI, here's the sentence where I wanted to use it (discussing the practicality of a Maxwell's Demon for sorting particles):

The Demon would find that, after a point, given a finite time to react, for every fast particle allowed through the shutter there'd be previously-trapped fast particles escaping back into the lower temperature chamber. Achieving any further temperature difference would be a Sysyphean task."

It's purely academic to contemplate it now, but in that sentence the next best alternative might be futile endeavour.

"Narcissism" is widely understood, even though most people don't know the myth of Narcissus. The fact that it is a common noun (spelled in lowercase) supports the case that it is just seen as another word. It is also something you see pretty often. "Sisyphean", on the other hand, is not widely understood and is always spelled with a capital S, referencing Sisyphus. I would be at least mildly surprised to find that someone knew the meaning of "Sisyphean" but had never heard the myth of Sisyphus.

That's the absurdist essay drawing a parallel between human life and the myth of Sisyphus and arguing that the purpose of philosophy is to give a reason not to commit suicide. I was just talking about the actual character from Greek mythology.

LOLs that my bads totally. I change the links' texts to give, a, real version of the myth of Sisyphus. Hopefully the original Wiki links in my myth of Narcissus... actually talks about him or else... I changes that too? <3

Amy Lee wrote:Just what we all need... more lies about a world that never was and never will be.

Azula to Long Feng wrote:Don't flatter yourself, you were never even a player.